McCain on Ted Cruz: Have these self-proclaimed Reagan Republicans forgotten that Reagan gave amnesty to three million illegals?

posted at 6:41 pm on March 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

We’ve reached the point where I honestly can’t tell if he means this as a criticism or not.

However, he did get in some criticism of the speakers, who included Cruz, at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week.

“All of these people at the CPAC will claim that they are Reagan Republicans,” McCain said. “Did they forget that Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to three million Americans? Do they forget that he did raise taxes, that he made an agreement with Tip O’Neill on Social Security, that Ronald Reagan said [the] 11th commandment is you don’t speak ill of your fellow Republicans?”

In the theme of invoking these compromises, McCain also said raising taxes should be an on the table as part of entitlement reform.

“Look, you have to put everything on the table,” he said when asked if a package could include taxes. “If you don’t put everything on the table, then the opposite side says, ‘OK, but we’re not going to agree to, say, raising the retirement age.’ “

Rule one among amnesty fans like Maverick: “Amnesty” is bad. They oppose amnesty. To them, as long as there are some preconditions to securing legal status for illegals — learn English, pay your back taxes, blah blah blah — then the process isn’t “amnesty.” Why would McCain choose to use that word in describing Reagan’s immigration measure in 1986? You could, of course, argue that what Reagan did was even more lax than what McCain’s Gang of Eight proposed, i.e. that Reagan’s law was a true amnesty whereas McCain’s really isn’t, but why would Maverick want to draw that distinction when he’s ostensibly praising Reagan here? He seems to be saying that Reagan’s more moderate moments were a good thing — he compromised and he got stuff done, unlike that incorrigible wacko bird Cruz who’s always scheming for ways to shut down the government. Sounds like he’s sort of claiming Reagan for the center-right, including his record on tax hikes and, er, “amnesty.”

Right? He surely doesn’t mean this in a “Reagan had his flaws too” way. Here’s what he said to another reporter this afternoon when pressed on Paul and Cruz:

Reagan, McCain said, actually reached across the aisle to work with Democrats on national security issues as well as domestic concerns.

“Ronald Reagan used to have drinks with Tip O’Neill,” he said. “Ronald Reagan made an agreement on Social Security that raised taxes.”

Maybe that’s the next rhetorical move on immigration reform from Republican supporters: Win one for the Gipper. (It’s all yours if you want it, Team Rubio.) In that case, is it fair to assume that McCain also agrees with Paul that Reagan was a more complex figure on foreign policy than he’s typically given credit for? I take it Maverick would resist, claiming that Reagan was a superhawk in the McCain mold instead, but there’s just no way that’s true. Show of hands: Who thinks President McCain would have withdrawn from Lebanon after the 1983 Marine barracks bombing? (He did vote against extending the Lebanon mission in the early 80s, but for complex reasons. And the older McCain seems considerably more hawkish than the younger version.) Who thinks President McCain would have withdrawn from anywhere once U.S. troops were in the field? In the McCain foreign-policy cosmology, withdrawal is always proof of a lack of resoluteness and therefore a gesture of provocative weakness. Pulling out under fire only emboldens the enemy. Which raises the question: Who among the three, McCain, Cruz, and Paul, is closest to the Reagan foreign-policy tradition? Or do we not know enough about the latter two to make any judgment yet?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Has McCain forgotten amnesty was given at that time in exchange for a B#ll$h!t promise to close and secure our borders so the flow of illegals into this country would STOP?! Now, decades later, Democrats and dumb@$$ RINOs like McCain want Americans to give amnesty to another batch of millions more illegals who have no disregard for this nation or our laws in exchange for that SAME B#LL$h!t promise. I agree with the plan that calls for closing and securing the borders, stopping illegal immigration once and for all and THEN talk about amnesty and citizenship. I also would like to see the decision made that after this latest amnesty is given THAT IS THE END – NO MORE – EVER! After that every illegal that comes into the country, refusing to follow the process so many law abiding wanna-be citizens have done, they are to be deported and will NEVER be allowed to be a U.S. citizen!!!

Democrats HATE the idea of closing/securing the border 1st. Hey, as the saying goes, ‘Fool me once shame on you…fool me twice shame on me. The promise to close/secure the border was an empty promise last time — they/the gift even sent teams to Mexico to teach illegals how to sign up for government handouts once they etc across the border…and our tax dollars are paying for that! Enough of hat BS, enough of the democrats’ false promises, and their ‘you have to do it OUR way’ garbage!

Then again, Like with Obamacare, despite the majority of Americans being against it – in this case the idea of amnesty without securing the borders 1st, I am just waiting for ‘Fidel’ Obama to pass Amnesty through Executive Order while giving the American people the middle finger.

Have these old men forgotten the condition on which amnesty was given? The condition you, Senator McCain, and your cronies promised would happen at the same time, which was to secure the borders? You fooled us once, you will not get that change again.

Whatever deal they propose in the next few years, any number of legalized illegals has to be subtracted from the number of legal immigrants coming in each year. That’s the bare minimum agreement acceptable. People really need to spend more time concentrating on the Legals. That way, you force the politicians to defend the legal immigration as well, which weakens their resolve.

“All of these people at the CPAC will claim that they are Reagan Republicans,” McCain said. “Did they forget that Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to three million Americans? Do they forget that he did raise taxes, that he made an agreement with Tip O’Neill on Social Security, that Ronald Reagan said [the] 11th commandment is you don’t speak ill of your fellow Republicans?”

Lots of lies of omission here. Reagan regretted later what he did and as others have pointed out McNumbnuts, is the the border was never secured. NEVER AGAIN you demented old coot.

There is a difference in giving amnesty to 3 million to get a fence built as opposed to amnesty for 30 million and lying about your intentions. The fact that he calls the immigration plan amnesty now will effectively kill it, so thanks for the self sabotage Johnny. So where are we on building that dang fence?

Did McCain forget that each one of Reagan’s 3 million illegals sponsored immigration for an average of 5 family members. With today’s numbers that’s about 60 million more Hispanics most of whom refuse to assimilate.

Did McCain forget that Reagan’s compromise with the Democrats was amnesty in return for border security and tax increases in return for spending cuts and that neither the border security nor the spending cuts ever happened.

“Look, you have to put everything on the table,” he said when asked if a package could include taxes. “If you don’t put everything on the table, then the opposite side says, ‘OK, but we’re not going to agree to, say, raising the retirement age.’ “

Pay more taxes in exchange for working more years to pay them. That’s quite a “deal” you’ve got going there Johnny boy.

McCain’s “P.O.W. card” is long overdrawn. Thanks for your service, now STFU and retire gracefully. And if you get your imbecilic daughter to vanish too, you may just regain some of the respect you’ve lost since 2008.

Hey folks, the executive branch is the one in charge of actually, you know, executing the laws duly passed by congress. If the border wasn’t closed, you can’t just slough that off onto the congress to whitewash Reagan’s legacy.

He didn’t enforce that part of the law. But he sure did the amnesty part, no?

You could, of course, argue that what Reagan did was even more lax than what McCain’s Gang of Eight proposed, i.e. that Reagan’s law was a true amnesty whereas McCain’s really isn’t,

But then you would be misinformed…

Reagan had a series of steps, hurdles, to become “legal”. It wasn’t just a wholesale amnesty program.

The bill was taken apart by the dems, but as it stands, was reasonable and provided for the most productive to stay and continue working until they completed the program to become permanent residents, and eventually citizens.

Though is now required by Tea Party right cons to hate on McCain, the attacks come off as shrill dogma. Allah seems to feel a need to throw some red meat out there. Fact is McCain makes some sense and many here just make ad-hom insults.
It’s silly. And the attacks on his age and suggestions of dementia…man.

McCain is correct – maybe that’s what get folks so riled up.
Cruz is Reaganesue only in that they both like to wear cowboy boots. Beyond that…meh.
McCain is also correct that the ‘No Amnesty!’ position is a losing one – especially now that this little cabal has draw ridiculous lines that don’t allow for any real, pragmatic, and achievable goals.
In a few years, Cruz will attempt some warped version of Reaganism again when he stands on a podium before a small crowd at the TX/Mexico border as says, “President Clinton, put up this wall!”.

McCain is also correct that the ‘No Amnesty!’ position is a losing one
verbaluce on March 12, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Listen Karl, we are not falling for that crap. Reagan supported amnesty, and he lost the Hispanic vote. Bush supported amnesty, and lost the Hispanic vote. McCain supports amnesty, and forgets he lost the Hispanic vote.

One should point out to McLame that Tip O’Neill promised three dollars of spending cuts for every one dollar of tax increases. O’Neill never kept his promise.

On the immigration side Edwin Meese tells of the conversation that he had with Ronald Reagan in which Reagan regretted his decision to grant that amnesty since the “new” laws that were put into place after that amnesty were not being enforced, just like our immigration laws today are not being enforced.

Amnesty is bad public policy. It is unfair to legal immigrants and U.S. citizens, it encourages and rewards disrespect for the rule of law, and it is counter-productive in that it consistently leads to more illegal immigration. It is bad policy regardless of who supports it, and regardless of which president signs it into law.

In 1986, Reagan signed an amnesty law that was supposed to give legal status to 1.1 – 1.2 million illegal aliens (but ended up giving legal status to over 3 million, 1/3 of whom were known frauds and criminals). The American public was told this amnesty would be a “one time” deal, and that the border would thereafter be made secure. The American public was also told that the “one time” amnesty was necessary because we couldn’t possibly deport over a million people; we needed to bring illegals “out of the shadows;” we needed to bring illegals into the system so they could pay the back taxes they owed; and that these illegals just wanted to become “good Americans.” IOW, the public then was fed the same pack of lies that it’s being fed today, by many of the same politicians, including McCain.

In fact, the 1986 amnesty led to a sharp increase in illegal immigration in subsequent years, none of the 1986 amnestied illegals paid back taxes (thanks to a line Chuck Schumer snuck into a subsequent tax law that made it impossible for the IRS to collect back taxes from amnestied illegal aliens), and many of the amnestied illegals never bothered to apply for U.S. citizenship or even to learn English (despite their mythical desire to become “good Americans”).

Nothing about amnesty makes sense, unless you’re a fool or a liar, or (as in McCain’s case), both.

Nothing about amnesty makes sense, unless you’re a fool or a liar, or (as in McCain’s case), both.

AZCoyote on March 12, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Thank you, AZ. The libs try to obscure the truth because it never backs their claims.

As for legal vs. illegal aliens (a line consistently and consciously blurred by liberals and RINOs), all the LEGAL aliens I know (and I am married to one, absolutely LOATHE the thought of amnesty. They went through the process and costs, and think it is patently unfair that others are allowed to simply walk across a border and given, yes, given, all sorts of privileges that they can’t get, like in-state tuition.

So, McCain, you miserable ass who has done more harm to the country than almost any democrat – who despite your military service I consider a traitor to the U.S. – try and learn something from history.

I wish McCain would just die already. Please. You are a useless piece of trash and need to go away permanently. I don’t despise Obama as much as I do McCain.

McCain is correct – maybe that’s what get folks so riled up.
Cruz is Reaganesue only in that they both like to wear cowboy boots. Beyond that…meh.
McCain is also correct that the ‘No Amnesty!’ position is a losing one – especially now that this little cabal has draw ridiculous lines that don’t allow for any real, pragmatic, and achievable goals.
In a few years, Cruz will attempt some warped version of Reaganism again when he stands on a podium before a small crowd at the TX/Mexico border as says, “President Clinton, put up this wall!”.

verbaluce on March 12, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Good lord, so much stupid and dishonesty. Par for the course.

I have yet to see a logical, fact based argument for amnesty from anyone. I have seen lots of lies and straw men (“we can’t round everyone up, therefore we have to make them citizens”), but have never, in 10 years of debating this issue, seen one fact based, logical argument as to why Amnesty is good policy for the U.S.

How does legalizing 10 million low-educated, unskilled laborers who snuck into America illegally do anything to slow down the flow of illegals into the U.S.?

How does legalizing 10 million low-educated, unskilled laborers who snuck into America illegally do anything to improve America’s unemployment rate?

How does legalizing 10 million low-educated, unskilled laborers who snuck into America illegally do anything to help reduce America’s deficit? (any claim that legalizing these people is a net positive for gov’t spending is ludicrous)

How does legalizing 10 million low-educated, unskilled laborers who snuck into America illegally do anything to reduce crime?

How does legalizing 10 million low-educated, unskilled laborers who snuck into America illegally do anything to increase wages?

How does legalizing 10 million low-educated, unskilled laborers who snuck into America illegally do anything to increase border security?

It does none of those things, and in fact, makes most of them worse. So, in what world is amnesty good policy for the U.S.?

it isn’t. there is no argument that amnesty is good for the U.S., but dozens of arguments as to how amnesty will harm the U.S.

I love the fact that crusty old Juan McVain brings up the biggest FAILURES of Dutch’s tenure … amnesty (with secure borders) and raising taxes (Dutch was fooled 2x by Tip and Co and vowed never to trust em again) and then takes Cruz to the woodshed with the .. ahem .. “11th Commandment” while doing unto fellow GOPer Cruz with same sentence .. of course, everyone realizes by now, that McVain used the ‘maverick’ schtick to march over to the other side, changed his uniform and led em in a team fight song, while getting rated a con .. comes into DC for 25 vote session, only votes on 10 bills .. hmmmmm Barack Hussein Obama .. sorry got off track .. I mean hmmmmm why didn’t you vote on those other 15 bills Senator McCain? Cutting backroom deals, maybe?

In a few years, Cruz will attempt some warped version of Reaganism again when he stands on a podium before a small crowd at the TX/Mexico border as says, “President Clinton, put up this wall!”.

verbaluce on March 12, 2014 at 9:40 AM

I also love it when a lefty tries to claim any understanding of Reagan.

I remember when the left loathed and hated Reagan as the worst, most extreme, right-wing nut-job of all time. Now, he is loved and respected by the left. Too funny. Completely dishonest, as per usual with the left, but funny nevertheless.

They like to pretend that if Reagan were alive today, he would share their views. That is absurd. Reagan was about as conservative as he could be at that point-in-time in American politics. That today, with the growth of conservatism, conservative media outlets, conservative think tanks, and the internet, what is politically possible for conservatism is different than it was between 1980-88.

So, if Reagan was alive today, we don’t know what he would think on certain issues. However, because is credo was small gov’t and deregulation, I highly doubt he would favor today’s left’s viewpoint on many, if any, issues.

As for amnesty, Reagan thought it was going to be “the last” amnesty in 1986, because he was promised border security and immigration reform in exchange for the amnesty. As always, the left lied to Reagan and never lived up to their side of the bargain, which is why Reagan later regretted the amnesty and why we have the same issue again today. So, the idea that Reagan would fall for the left’s lies again today is absurd. Reagan would most likely be our strongest vocal opponent of amnesty were he alive today.

But, history and honesty are 2 things you can never expect a leftist to understand.

Sure, Reagan accepted the concept of amnesty one time, as a condition for Congress to proceed also to secure the border. Congress failed to keep that promise…stiffing Reagan.

With proof of such lack or trustworthiness, why would anyone play Charlie Brown for the Progressive Liberal Lucy and kick at the same ball again? It is one thing to be swindled. It is quite another to invite being swindled again…particularly by the same scam.

“If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left. He would have trouble getting his own nomination, but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes. We need to look at the whole package, the whole picture, everybody, and stop nitpicking ourselves to death” — Michael Reagan in 2011http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/27/michael-reagan-my-dad-might-be-too-moderate-for-todays-gop

Yes, Reagan did that. In addition, there were free ESL classes and citizenship classes. The idea was that the illegal people then would get green cards (which were actually pink!) and we would then stop all other illegal immigration. I taught in those ESL and citizenship classes.

Well, we all saw how well that has worked out. Why can’t we learn from our mistakes?

Monkeytoe likes pulling legs. The quotes obviously show that Reagan was willing to compromise – he was moderate. Click on the links for more.
I do not like Newt Gingrich, but he witnessed Reagan up close and sums up his leadership style in action:

1. Reagan was not perfect. Not everything he did worked out right. We never got our borders under control. We don’t track visa’s. We don’t require E-Verify.

2. This is not 1986. We have too many Americans not working (37% of working age adults don’t work). We have too much debt, endless deficits, and too many entitlements to be allowing 12-20 million more to get access to all of our poverty programs.

3. There is no moderate Democrat party anymore. We can not allow Democrats to have legislative majorities. Another 12-20 million voters who are inclined and highly likely to side with Democrats will doom this country into socialist stagnation for several decades.

4. Any promises or reassurances that the new legalized immigrants won’t have access to welfare or voting rights is a damn lie. The courts will immediately invalidate any portion of any law that limits these rights.

I get tired of this revisionist history from these Neostatists. They twist the facts to gain support for their amnesty push, and try to tell the people who actually were paying attention that they were wrong and didn’t see and hear what the true story was

Monkeytoe likes pulling legs. The quotes obviously show that Reagan was willing to compromise – he was moderate. Click on the links for more.
I do not like Newt Gingrich, but he witnessed Reagan up close and sums up his leadership style in action:

Published on Jan 25, 2012
The iconic President raised taxes, signed into law immigration reform and increased the size of government. Was he a moderate? Newt Gingrich responds.

Dave Turson on March 13, 2014 at 8:41 AM

You don’t know history or have any idea of what you are talking about.

Reagan changed his veiws significantly betweeen 1967 and 1980 and Michael Reagan doesn’t speak for Reagan. So, what you think those 2 quotes prove is idiotic.

Also, it is well established that Reagan only agreed to amnesty in order to obtain border enforcement and because it was to be “the last amnesty” because they were going to fix the problem by strengthening the border.

The left lied about it and never did what it promised to do and Reagan regretted the amnesty.

So, try not to be so dishonest.

The problem with all of you amnesty people is that you refuse to have an even remotely honest debate. You lie at every turn. that is because you have no rationale leg to stand on. It is despicable. Yes, I think you are despicable and dishonest.

Let’s assume your dishonesty is correct and Reagan, were he alive today, would support granting amnesty to 10 million + low educated, unsilled laborers. Would that make it the right policy for the U.S.?

No.

You amnesty shills have no argument. I’ve been debating this issue for more than 10 years and have yet to hear one fact-based, logical argument for why amnesty is good policy for the U.S. All I hear are lies and straw-men. Because there is not one single factual basis for arguing that amnesty is good policy for the U.S.

It is frustrating to have the same insipid conversations over and over again when the pro-amnesty side states the same inanity over and over and thinks itself morally righteous for doing so.

And break out the word “compromise” as if it is a virtue in and of itself. Compromise is only a virtue when it is used to further a good goal. Compromise for the sake of compromise is not a good in and of itself.

How does one compromise between a horrifically bad policy for the U.S. and a good policy for the U.S. Hey – we know this would be horrible for the U.S., but we’ll agree to do it in order to “compromise”. Makes sense. In return we’ll get absolutely nothing (oh, they’ll claim there will be some new border security, but nobody believes that will ever happen).

So, let’s legalize and then make citizens of 10+ million low educated, unskilled laborers in return for nothing. Which will be a win-win for the country and the GOP somehow.